Instigator / Con
35
1574
rating
10
debates
80.0%
won
Topic
#378

Can The Judeo-Christian God Create a Stone That Is Too Heavy For Him to Lift?

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
15
0
Better sources
10
8
Better legibility
5
5
Better conduct
5
3

After 5 votes and with 19 points ahead, the winner is...

PsychometricBrain
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
Three days
Max argument characters
5,000
Voting period
One week
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Pro
16
1387
rating
34
debates
22.06%
won
Description

Pro is going to argue that the Judeo-Christian God can create a stone that is too heavy for Him to lift, whereas Con is going to argue against this resolution.

Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

The context of the debate, as stated in the description was about a stone being "too heavy" for god to lift. Con encompassed this by showing that it was impossible for any reason, which necessarily includes the reason of weight. However, for Pro to demonstrate his burden, he would have to demonstrate it in the context defined, being weight, which Pro did not do.

Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Conduct: to con due to the forefeit (which merits the point), I felt pro didnt debate in good faith here - and feel that needs to be spelt out.

Arguments: Cons main argument is effectively arguing a non contradictory form of omnipotence: That logically impossible options are impossible and don’t even need to be considered. This was completely unrefuted by pro.

Pro added two semantic arguments (I wouldn’t call them kritiks upon review).

The first, is that God could just say he won’t lift the rock and it becomes unliftable. Con points out the debate resolution: that it’s not about an unliftable rock, but too heavy too lift. Pro could have put a more detailed argument to support the claim, but he didn’t, so cons rebuttal stands.

The second argument pro makes is that Jesus is God, and Jesus was human. This was the most promising, and con points out that Jesus has super human abilities. As pro makes no attempt to produce a subsequent argument, and just repeats his original, cons rebuttal stands.

Pro could have won by pointing out that Jesus needed help carrying the cross: but didn’t. Instead deciding to capitulate his arguments.

As a result, pros arguments were not just insufficient, they bordered on insulting to both the other debater, and to the reader. Pros arguments, demeanour and attitude was woefully pathetic. I am awarding argument points to con.

Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Arguments:

Con's case for why god cannot make a stone TOO HEAVY (important) for him to lift is actually pretty good.
Con points out that god is actually very limited, can't do lots of things, and this is so understood and known that there's a term for it called "divine self-limitation."

Con mentions that god can't go against his nature, which isn't compelling in the slightest, but Pro drops it like a bowling ball covered in baby oil, and to me if I have to accept that god can't go against his nature because Pro drops this, then creating the damn rock is much more challenging for Pro at this point because the attempt at lifting the rock would violate the nature against which god cannot go, dropped by Pro.

Con also mentions that the logical paradoxes point to the impossibility of the paradox itself, i.e. the paradox isn't anything because it challenges why there isn't a square circle...it's an ok argument, because it's almost like a kritik of itself, but it's all rather immaterial because Pro again, drops it.
I've seen the argument before, but not with this spin, so props to Con for that.

Con's case is basically that being able to create something TOO HEAVY for oneself isn't a power.
Again, I don't find this compelling, but, Pro...man Pro came to this debate to...crap the bed?
Eat the soggy doughnut?
I mean, it almost seemed like Pro's account got hacked or something, but Pro debated like crap.

All Pro really says is that, well let me put it all here...thanks to the forfeit and back burner energy I can paste all of Pro's case here:

"Argument 1: God can not lie so all he has to do is say he will no longer lift a rock he created and boom the rock is unliftable .
Argument 2: God can put himself in human for like he did with Jesus and all of a sudden he is weaker and can't lift really huge things."

That's it.

The problem is that argument 1 says that god could say "he will no longer lift a rock" which does not speak to whether or not, by god saying that utterance, god COULD no longer lift the rock i.e. would the rock be TOO HEAVY for him is not resolved by god saying "I WILL no longer."
Maybe if god said "I can no longer lift any rocks I create because they will be too heavy for me," then maybe i see this working.

But, this was a crapping of the bed and Con even noted,
"If argument 1 was sound it would only lead to the conclusion that God would never lift the stone"
Which were my thoughts exactly.

Argument 2 isn't bad because god's wont to do the old body switcharoo, but Con has a nice rebuttal in that TOO HEAVY for human form is not TOO HEAVY for original god form, or god 1.0 as I call it, so human body god is irrelevant.
Pro possibly could have responded in his last round, but didn't.

Pro's last round wasn't much either, just asserting that he should win and he did end up changing what god could say to "After this point I can no longer lift this 1 million pound rock because it is too heavy" but at this point it's too late and Con can't respond here anyway.

So, easy vote, arguments to Con, the semantics would have worked if they had been done right in the 2nd round by saying "Forever more, all rocks I make I can't lift, too heavy."

Sources to Con, because they all were used to support Con's successful argument and upon inspection the quotations were accurate and made Con's point about nonsense still applying to god and the idea of divine self-limiting that much more effective for their case.
The bible quotes were sourced too which made checking those quotes easier.
Pro had no sources.

I'll clarify anything if asked.

Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Cons opening argument is two pronged. First, the common atheist argument about a stone too heavy for God to lift is already based on a misunderstanding of how God's omnipotence works. Secondly, trying to set up this sort of a paradox is a self-contradiction anyway. Con caps off these two points by offering a famous quote from a well respected Christian theologian as a simple summary of his argument. His overall presentation here was both logically valid and stylish.

Pro then showed up and clearly "phoned in" a half-hearted attempt at a rebuttal, by tossing out two hypothetical scenarios where God could make a rock too heavy to lift.

The first scenario was that since God can't lie, he can just say that he won't lift a rock and that would make it too heavy. Con offers the obvious rebuttal that God promising not to do something isn't the same thing as actually being unable to do it.

The second scenario involves God taking human form and thus being unable to lift the rock. Again, Con offers the obvious rebuttal here that Jesus regularly displayed various powers beyond that of an ordinary human, so assuming that he wouldn't be able to lift heavy rocks doesn't make a lot of sense.

Neither of Pro's scenarios made much sense and Con easily slapped them both down. Pro then forfeited round 2 and made a very weak effort to change his argument in the final round. Even with his proposed change, Pro seems not to really be taking the argument seriously and never offered a real rebuttal to any of Con's original points.

Criterion
Con
Tie
Pro
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Conduct: Pro forfeited one round and thus loses conduct. I'd also ding him for conduct points as he did not take the debate seriously. I was totally unimpressed with his arguments. It's clear that con had put in effort to the debate, something that pro did not.

Arguments

Con argues in the opening round that omnipotence does not necessarily mean that God can do absolutely everything. The definition that con provided was that God cannot do that which is illogical and that which is contrary to his nature.

Pro's arguments doesn't seem to follow logically through the debate. His only two contentions are irrelevant. Pro is essentially arguing a Kritkit that is irrelevant. I don't see con as moving the goalpost because they clearly defined God's omnipotence as that which is logically possible - i.e. maximally great.

Con wins this debate hands down.